FACTS: Prior to assuming the bench, a
constitutional county court judge (who is also a licensed mental health professional)
maintained a private clinical practice which included preparation of court-ordered social
studies in adoption and child custody proceedings.

QUESTION: May a constitutional county court judge who is
also a licensed mental health professional provide clinical and technical (but not legal)
consultation to other licensed mental health professionals who are involved in the
preparation of court ordered social studies? The consultations would only be given under
the following conditions:

the judge is not involved in the interview process, investigation or other information
gathering activity required in conducting the studies;

the judge would only consult with other licensed mental health professionals,
and he would not be involved in frequent transactions with lawyers or other persons likely
to come before the court on which the Judge serves;

the judge will not voluntarily testify as an expert witness while continuing
to serve on the bench;

the fact that the judge was consulted in preparation of a social study report
may be noted in the report by listing his name and professional credentials (absent his
judicial title); however, a disclaimer will be given and no representation will be made
that the judge holds a particular opinion or makes a specific recommendation regarding
disposition of the case under study; and

the judge would be compensated on a fee basis by the mental heath professional
who employs him.

ANSWER: No. The purpose of a court-ordered social study
is to provide evidentiary support for a determination of the best interests of a child in
a custody or adoption proceeding, and it is ordered specifically prepared for use of a
court in making that determination. Recognition of the contribution of the county judge in
preparation of a social study would tend to lend the prestige of his judicial office to
advance the private interests of others in violation of Canon 2(B).

This activity could also exploit the judge's judicial position, and by
making him a potential witness in all cases in which he serves as a recognized consultant
in preparation of a social study, it could involve the judge in frequent transactions with
lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves, in violation
of Canon 4(D)(1).

Canon 2(A) requires a judge to act at all times in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and the
judge should restrict his private clinical practice to non-court related activities while
serving as a county judge.